Batch install result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — it raises MissingParameterError when result_id is absent — but says nothing about response shape or polling/eventual-consistency behavior for an install result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the rest is auto-generated Sphinx boilerplate (:type:, :rtype:, :raises:) that partially restates the schema. It is not bloated maliciously, but several lines add little for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 43-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum distinguish the meaningful parameters and describe what the result contains; instead it names one param and gives a vague return line. An agent cannot know how to populate or interpret the other fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 43 parameters, and the description documents exactly one of them (result_id). The other 42 nullable fields are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, which is a severe gap rather than compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (result of a batch installation) qualified by a result ID, which separates it conceptually from servicenow_batch_install and servicenow_batch_rollback. It does not explicitly cite a sibling, so it falls short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus servicenow_batch_install (which presumably initiates the install and yields the result ID) or the polling/progress siblings. Usage is only implied by the mention of result_id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.